1. Experience, Practices and Lessons Learned!
Data flow
Production of the XML-file
CO2
Methods (M, C, E)
Integration of UNFCCC and CLRTAP in
Seminar for Operators (inputs to PRTR.se)
Contact Operator-Public
Operator comments
Methods used
Direct access to EPRTR Web site
Initiative 2010
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

2. Data Flow Feedback EPRTR (XML file) SMP PRTR.se Quality assessment
Facility data
Public
Sweden has developed an electronic reporting tool for environmental reporting (SMP). The reporting tool is used by most of the operators covered by the E-PRTR reporting.
For our quality assessment we make an extract from the SMP database, based on E-PRTR activity and if the given E-PRTR thresholds are exceeded. Suspected values are marked and commented in the quality assessment file. The suspected values are directly communicated to the operators by . If the suspected value actually is wrong the operator is supposed to correct the values in SMP. If the value is correct the operator is supposed to give an explanation in SMP.
The corrected value will be available on the Swedish PRTR website the day after the correction was made.
The E-PRTR xml-file is generated directly from the Swedish PRTR website.
EPRTR (XML file)
SMP
PRTR.se

3. Production of the XML file!
This leads us to our production of the xml-file.

4. As I said:
You can generate the xml-file directly from the Swedish PRTR website. But you need to have access to the administrator mode for the website. But once you have it the xml-file can be generated at any time from this menu.

5. This side says that you can generate an xml-file
This side says that you can generate an xml-file. And you have to type what year the file should be generated for.

6. Here I typed year 2007 and the I clicked here to start the generate the file.

7. And then the generated file can be saved.

8. And then if you open the file it looks like this and it is possible to edit the file.

9. Reporting of CO2
fossil and biogenic fuels

10. There will be a time series inconsistency if you compare EPER CO2-data and E-PRTR CO2-data. The reason for the inconsistency is that to EPER you were only supposed to report the CO2 originating from the fossil fuels according to the IPCC guidelines. To E-PRTR you are supposed to report the total CO2 emissions (meaning the sum of the CO2 emissions originating from fossil fuels and biogenic fuels). In Sweden we have many pulp and paper industries that uses great amount of biogenic fuels and for many facilities there will be a huge difference in the reported amounts of CO2 if you look at the time series as you can see on this slide.
Our question is will this issue be explained to the public on the E-PRTR website?
In the Swedish electronic reporting tool the operators’ are obliged to report their CO2 emissions both as total (sum of fossil and biogenic CO2) and as separately parts of fossil and biogenic CO2. Today, only the total emissions of CO2 can been seen on the Swedish PRTR-website, but in near future the proportion of biogenic and fossil CO2 emissions also will be seen.

11. Reporting of the method codes

12. Moving on to the method codes
Moving on to the method codes. This have been a bit of a mess for us and for the operators in Sweden.
The operators reports the Method Type Codes and the Method Descriptions directly in the electronic reporting tool. Both the method type codes and the method descriptions are mandatory today, but we are thinking about making the method description field non-mandatory.
We think that the reporting instructions are unclear weather the method description is mandatory or not. the cause is that we have had trouble to interpret whether this (both the Code and the Description) really is mandatory or not for the facilities. We have for 2007 data, interpret that it is mandatory (for the facilities) to report the Code (NRB, ETS, etc) and a short description into the reporting tool. This strengthens by the fact that it looks like it is mandatory in the XML-file.
We have also noticed that other countries have done different. We would like to raise this in order to have an exchange of experience and to help us handling this for the reporting 2008.

13. The table is taken from the guidance document
The table is taken from the guidance document. If you look at the text below the table it says that “In addition to the three letter abbreviation the short designation or a short description of the methodology could be given.
We also think that it is unclear what is correct according to the validation tool.
We would also like to raise this issue in order to have an exchange of experience and to help us handling this for our reporting of data for year 2008.

14. Integration of UNFCCC and CLRTAP in www.PRTR.se
On the Swedish PRTR website you will also be able to see the Swedish reporting to UNFCCC and CLRTAP in a 1 by 1 km gridd on Google maps.

15. Transport NOX.

16. Shipping and landing and take-offs NOX.

17. Seminar for Operators 23 October 2009
Direct contact (via link) between the facility and the public on the web site were the facility data presents
A possibility for the operator to present a comment on certain interesting figures (to the public) in order to explain e.g. strange figures
Important that we on the web site tell the public about the uncertainty in methods used for M,C, and E

20. Miscellaneous
Direct access to information on a specific pollutant

21. Launch 24 November 2009 Miscellaneous
Cooperation in 2010 will be initiated with:
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
UNEP global initiative on mercury
Basel Convention
UNFCCC
CLRTAP